Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Jeffrey Wolynski has a wiki page that describes the fantasy clearly without people wasting their time looking at his YouTube videos.
For example "the Earth itself is a black dwarf star" is a totally ignorant assertion:
* Black dwarf stars would be made of electron-degenerate matter. The Earth is mad up of mostly rock !
* Black dwarf stars would have masses of white dwarf stars. The estimated masses of known white dwarf stars are between 0.17 and 1.33 solar masses. This is at least 56,610 Earth masses !

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

You don't understand the theory, or the point being made. The stars ARE the new planets. They cool and die becoming "planets".

This is not difficult to understand at all, the reason why people have such a hard time with it is because they have been conditioned to believe stars are fusion reactors, regardless if they are actually massive electrochemical events.

They invented the "fusion reactor" model for specific reasons and I can outline them very easily here:

1. It was taught that Earth was formed from a disk from the same material as the Sun (this is where they **** up). So, they have to be the same age.

2. Since they formed from the same material, then everything in the vicinity (the solar system) has to be the same material as well. (Another assumption). So you take the oldest object found, meteorites, and date them. If they are 4.5 billion years old, then that becomes the age of the Sun. (Do people see how fast this is degenerating, all because of the anchor assumption? That Earth and the Sun formed from a disk?)

3. Now, since the Sun has to be older than the Earth, if not the same age, and it shines with incredible brilliance, there has to be some process to keep it that way for billions of years. Soooo guess what they did? They invented the fusion model. There's a fusion core in there that radiates and has been producing energy for billions of years...

4. There we have it. The Earth formed from a disk (material left over from the Sun), to them being the same age, to the Sun needing a source of energy to make it as old as Earth.

Do people understand what has happened here? We tried to make the protoplanetary disk work, and based almost everything astronomy related on it (anchoring), yet the Earth wasn't formed from a PP disk.

See what happens when you assume too much? You end up with false understanding, anchored to false understanding. It is a house of cards.

The solution is simple. You take away the PP disk. The star is the new planet. Young stars are hot and bright, and are very young. The older stars are comprised of rocks and minerals, an iron core, and the remains of the magnetic field which has dissipated considerably.

If the 18th century PP disk theoreticians realized this, then we would have never invented the fusion model of the Sun, we would have come to the much more reasonable conclusion that the Sun IS a young phenomenon, it is not older than the Earth or the other more evolved stars in our system

This of course is utter blasphemy to the people here, so it is natural for them to be up in arms against me. The truth is that the universe isn't as complex as we are told. This stuff can be taught to elementary and middle school students. I guess that kinda does away with the idea that we are going to have a "working fusion reactor" based off runaway fusion from pellets of deuterium.

A 70 year detour, the nuclear age ruined star science. I guess I can coin it the snowball effect. You take a harmless assumption, and it snowballs.

The ITER is NEVER going to work. The Sun's energy is provided by plasma recombination, not fusion reactions. It is cooling very rapidly, and is only ~70 million years old, not the 3 + billion as the Earth.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

scientists usually are very willing to hear how they may have gotten it wrong.

********. From my experience it goes like this:

1. You are wrong, I know how things work because I'm the one who gets paid to do this stuff.

2. You are wrong, I know how things work. I would have never missed something this obvious because I went to school for it. (Yet that is the very reason WHY they missed it, it was TOO obvious.)

Check out the further posts. People love to say how "I'M WRONG". Maybe you don't actually have any experience in teaching people alternative understandings of reality?

The truth is that scientists don't give a **** about "new theories". They are content in their position in life, the love their little bubbles of reality. Anything that comes around and threatens that bubble (as we see in the posts) they get offended.

I probably have vastly more experience pushing a ridiculed theory than you. You can learn something from me, that's up to you though, the lessons I have in this brain are probably beyond most posters here. I wouldn't expect them to understand how humans behave unless they experience it themselves.

Years of schooling in safe institutions where everything is "standard" and nobody steps out of line is the absolute best way to make worker bees out of students. Keep them just smart enough to operate the telescopes and publish papers and search for grant money, just dumb enough to not question what they have been taught in school. There's the educational sweet spot. Wave some money in their faces and boom, you have lemmings.

It is almost as if giving someone new insight is like punching them in the face. You KNOW there's a problem if they get personally offended by introduction of an alternative understanding.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

I needed to post replies, but I doubt the people on this forum are on my level. I can give it a shot though. Most of them seem like slices of the popular gullible crowd expected to be rammed though institutions.

I'm learning that the free thinkers stick out like sore thumbs, I'd notice one if one appeared. I haven't seen that happen yet.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

I think addressing the numerous criticisms of your unsupported conjectures would be a good place to start if you wish to convince anyone.

My experience is clearly greater again. The criticisms have already been addressed in the papers. It is up to the readers of this forum to LOOK at them and read what has already been said.

I'm still waiting.

As well, the experience I have is also apparent in the realization that nobody can really convince anyone of anything. That's a misconception. A person does their own convincing, thus it doesn't matter how reasonable the conclusions made are, people will still go with what ever makes them feel better about themselves.

In this case, the cognitive dissonance is much greater for those willing to consider that the very basics of star science are that the "stars" cool and die to become the "planets", when they have been conditioned ALREADY to the idea that a star is mutually exclusive of "planet". See?

The well was poisoned before I even came to this forum. False knowledge is getting in the way of people learning this theory.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?

Which it doesn't, what is this remarkable proof, presented here by you?

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.

__________________Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah

The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Fact is, the neb hypo was invented when 'astronomers' thought entire galaxies were new solar systems.

Then one day, we zoomed in, realized they were not new solar systems in formation, but entire galaxies, and nobody had the balls to come out and say it.

"Ooopss. We ********** up."

Simply put, we should have made the correction the very INSTANT we realized that those "nebular disks" were not solar systems in formation, but entire galaxies. Now, we are stuck with theory that doesn't make any sense, and is currently false in more ways than one, thanks to the Kepler space telescope completely obliterating the neb hypo.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.

Why would anyone wish to do that? What would be the point? Even if someone successfully convinced you on this point, would it fix any of the massive numbers of mistakes in the remainder of your theory? Would you revise your theory in any way? Is there even anyone else here who needs to be shown that you are incorrect?

I would add that you have requested emails from others on this forum to help you with your theory, but that you have completely dismissed their knowledge and abilities and ignored the concerns posted here. Perhaps, in fact, criticisms on the open forum are too public if the goal is to just spam your mistaken views on the Internet without corrections.

Fact is, the neb hypo was invented when 'astronomers' thought entire galaxies were new solar systems.

When exactly was it that astronomers thought entire galaxies were new solar systems? And which astronomers believed that?

__________________I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. TrudeauA person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

I asked for your evidence that it was lost, so please demonstrate that there is some angular momentum that is lost in the theory of planetary formation.

You asserted it but did not show your work. Please do not link to Youtube

This your post, which totally lacks any evidence of your assertion

Now Dear Sir do you claim this is not your post or taht somewhere hidden within it is a demonstration of your Assertion

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

The point I want to address is why do scientists keep the nebular hypothesis when it violates the conservation of angular momentum?

This alone falsifies the nebular hypothesis. They claim to be "rational" and also claim that theories are subject to falsifiability, yet when THEIR theories are falsified, its all smoke and mirrors/denial.

Why does this occur?

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

1. You are wrong, I know how things work because I'm the one who gets paid to do this stuff.

2. You are wrong, I know how things work. I would have never missed something this obvious because I went to school for it. (Yet that is the very reason WHY they missed it, it was TOO obvious.)

Check out the further posts. People love to say how "I'M WRONG". Maybe you don't actually have any experience in teaching people alternative understandings of reality?

The truth is that scientists don't give a **** about "new theories". They are content in their position in life, the love their little bubbles of reality. Anything that comes around and threatens that bubble (as we see in the posts) they get offended.

This is demonstrably false; here are some examples:

-plate tectonics
-prions as a cause of infectious disease
-antibiotic therapy as a cure of most stomach ulcers

In each case, the proponents of these hypotheses were met with skepticism, and yes, probably some derision. But the proponents didn't rail against the mainstream view or play the conspiracy card. They persevered, performed new experiments and resubmitted their papers. And over time their alternative views became accepted science because they submitted solid evidence to back up their assertions. Everything you've posted and linked are assertions not supported by any evidence.

Your current approach is as if a guy strode out onto the field during a baseball game and announced that they were playing the game all wrong and they should immediately move the game to a soccer field. To torture the analogy further, I suggest you set your sights a little lower, like getting rid of the designated hitter rule.

respectfully,

ferd

__________________"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just donít.Ē-Fran Lebowitz

Okay, then how is the angular momentum lost then? Explain it to me, because it is still an outstanding issue that unless resolved, renders the Neb Hypo false.

And what momentum exactly is lost, assertion made but unsubstantiated.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

You don't understand the theory, or the point being made. The stars ARE the new planets. They cool and die becoming "planets". ...

Bloviating snipped

Here is what I posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab
Just think, entire galaxies of nothing but planets.

I understand just fine. You claim planets are old, cooled stars. An old enough galaxy (13 billion + years of galaxies) all the stars should have become planets. Where are these galaxies composed entirely of planets?

Hell, my first question you have refused to respond to was:

How do these old stars all end up in the same rotational plane as the youngest star? Show one photo of a stellar system that is made entirely of shining stars with the youngest at the center.

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

No jeffreyw: We all understand the basic fact that planets are not stars because they have different compositions, are massively less massive (about 100,000 less massive than a white dwarf star !) and are formed at the same time as the star they orbit.

That this makes 'The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis' into a crank fantasy is thus obvious to us.

A display of ignorance about astronomy and physics makes this fantasy even more obvious.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, the age of the Sun is ≈4.6 billion years. So they are the same age.

We have the Sun that is billions of years old and a process called fusion which can power the Sun for those billions of years and even more billions of years in the future. This is worked out using the known laws of physics applied to a gravitationally bound ball of gas, i.e. any star including the Sun !

And then we have it - a delusion that stars are powered by fusion is based on the measured fact that the Sun, Earth and meteorites have the same age.
The history is that as evidence for an older Earth were gathered, various sources of energy for the Sun were eliminated. Firstly chemical which would have lasted a few million of years, then gravitational (a maximum of 100 million years). Then a gap until fusion was discovered and found to be able to power the Sun for the measured age of the Earth. At the same time the extension to every star.

This doesn't address the theory of stellar metamorphosis, check the thread title.

Wrong, jeffreyw: My post addresses some ignorance in your post.
Stellar evolution is not uniform - it is often catastrophic thus

Originally Posted by Reality Check

In this universe, jeffreyw, stars are seen to explode and the remains of those explosions are studied.

However the scientific model of stellar evolution uses the principle of uniformitarianism

Quote:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

which is the other part of your ignorance. This does not mean that every object in the universe has to be the same object! Molecular clouds are not planets. Planets are not stars. Stars are not galaxies. Galaxies are not galaxy clusters. Etc.
What it means is that we apply the known laws of physics to molecular clouds to get that stars form. Apply the known laws of physics to stars and they remain stars.

I needed to post replies, but I doubt the people on this forum are on my level.....

I do not think that assuming that posters in the thread have the low level of knowledge as displayed in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is furthering the discussion of the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis, jeffreyw.
You can assume that we know what a planet is (rocky, minerals, low mass, low magnetic field), what a star is (mostly gaseous, no minerals, high mass, high magnetic field) and that they are different !

The only people who will keep the neb hypo now are those individuals who were schooled back in the 80's and 90's before exoplanets started ruining everything.

Sorry, jeffreyw, but that is a lie - exoplanets have not "ruined" the nebular hypothesis . The detection methods are biased toward giant planets so the observed exoplanets have thrown light on the models of formation of giant planets.

When exactly was it that astronomers thought entire galaxies were new solar systems? And which astronomers believed that?

This is actually the basis of The Great Debate in 1920 described in a Starts With a Bang blog.
Astronomers had observed for a long some that there were what looked like clouds of gas in a spiral shape (spiral nebulae). They were fairly evenly split between the "these are stellar systems forming in our galaxy" and "these are spiral galaxies outside of our galaxy" camps. The result was the evidence presented at the time could not tell the theories apart. Hubble's paper in 1925 of the discovery of Cepheid variable stars in several spiral nebulae resolved the matter - they are spiral galaxies.

This is actually the basis of The Great Debate in 1920 described in a Starts With a Bang blog.
Astronomers had observed for a long some that there were what looked like clouds of gas in a spiral shape (spiral nebulae). They were fairly evenly split between the "these are stellar systems forming in our galaxy" and "these are spiral galaxies outside of our galaxy" camps. The result was the evidence presented at the time could not tell the theories apart. Hubble's paper in 1925 of the discovery of Cepheid variable stars in several spiral nebulae resolved the matter - they are spiral galaxies.

Just a point of order here (Because she is a personal hero) But it was Henrietta Leavitt who discovered the relationship between galactic distances and Cephid variables.

However it was Hubble who used that relationship to measure that stellar nebula were outside of our galaxy so he gets the credit for publishing that.

Leavitt correctly identified the distance to the Large and Small Magellanic clouds a good 10 years before Hubble's measurement of M31. Hubble very openly acknowledged his debt to her suggesting if she had not died in 1921 she probably would have won a Nobel prize for the physics behind the discovery.

He himself was not eligible because mere astronomical discoveries were not considered eligible for Nobels back then By the time the rules were changed he himself could not win the Nobel because they can't be awarded posthumously.

Hubbles real genius was in stitching the whole thing together to come up with the concept of the expanding universe, which has to rank as one of the most counter intuitive discoveries of the ages lol

The scientific consensus, which is mathematically consistent and experimentally verifiable, is that nebular hypotheses doesn't violate angular momentum. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd think that would have made a stir in cosmology.

Absolutely. The nebular hypothesis has been subject to detailed scrutiny over decades.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw

So how is the angular momentum lost Sir? Magic? God?

Perhaps you should do some reading on the theory you claim to have falsified?

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

I personally believe that if there is to be progress in physics we need to keep the math out of it.

I suspect Jeffrey wants to keep the math out of it simply because he can't do the math. Neither can I; but I don't insist on overturning "establishment astronomy" (all of science, really) because of my ignorance. Jeffrey has got the most invincible case of Dunning-Kruger going on here I think I've ever seen.

__________________I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.